• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

What if . . .

DLH said:
DBT said:
Dogmatic claims are those made in the absence of evidence.
Click to expand...

Just for fun . . . .

Oxford
Dogmatic: inclined to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true.

Science: the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation, experimentation, and the testing of theories against the evidence obtained.

Claim: state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Truth: a fact or belief that is accepted as true.
Click to expand...

Context: a belief held without the support of evidence, the existence of a God, Jesus, etc, may be dogmatically accepted and asserted to be true, yet just that something is accepted and asserted to be true is not enough to establish the truth of the claim.
 
DBT said:
Context: a belief held without the support of evidence, the existence of a God, Jesus, etc, may be dogmatically accepted and asserted to be true, yet just that something is accepted and asserted to be true is not enough to establish the truth of the claim.
Click to expand...

Yeah? So?
 
DBT said:
So where does that leave you in regard to your beliefs and claims?
Click to expand...

It leaves me here. In the same boat as everyone else except I'm the only one that actually lives by the expression.

Let's say Donald Trump makes the claim that he built Trump tower. He documents the basics of his making of the alleged tower in writing. What is the evidence? First of all, we have the tower and the written document. You could say the fact that everyone knows it to be true is, at least in some sense, evidence.

So, in my specific case, I have the written evidence, the Bible, and I have life, the universe and everything. There is the fact that for 6,000 years virtually everyone has known it and it wasn't really questioned until about the time of the industrial revolutions, but that's just evidence. Evidence isn't much. What about yourself?

 
DLH said:
in this hypothetical there is no doubt of the theist that Jehovah doesn't exist and of the atheist that he does. What the questions do is, as explained, remove the ideology.
Click to expand...
That wasn’t how you presented it.
In your mental masturbation exercise, there was no doubt in any mind that Jehovah God exists without a doubt or doesn’t exist without a doubt.
If atheists and b’leevers still exist, then nothing has been “discovered without a doubt”.
It’s a stupid trope.
 
Last edited:
DLH said:
There is the fact that for 6,000 years virtually everyone has known it
Click to expand...
BULLSHIT
Not a “fact” by any measure.

Calling something like that a “fact” reveals the intellectual dishonesty, not of your premise, but of your reason for putting it forth.
 
Elixir said:
DLH said:
There is the fact that for 6,000 years virtually everyone has known it
Click to expand...
BULLSHIT
Not a “fact” by any measure.

Calling something like that a “fact” reveals the intellectual dishonesty, not of your premise, but of your reason for putting it forth.
Click to expand...

BULLTRUE
A fact by virtually every measure. Wikipedia is infallible, is it not?
 
Elixir said:
DLH said:
in this hypothetical there is no doubt of the theist that Jehovah doesn't exist and of the atheist that he does. What the questions do is, as explained, remove the ideology.
Click to expand...
That wasn’t how you presented it.
In your mental masturbation exercise, there was no doubt in any mind that Jehovah God exists without a doubt or doesn’t exist without a doubt.
If atheists and b’leevers still exist, then nothing has been “discovered without a doubt”.
It’s a stupid trope.
Click to expand...

Go back and read it again without the dumb fake atheist ideological fixation.

That was the point.
 
So, you openly admit to having a condition that has affected your ability to think rationally and carefully about things, and then come here to argue apologetics when the topic is so complex that it made your head hurt BEFORE your current condition?

Please, just quit preaching at us. There is no part of this work you can do now. Rest, enjoy your faith for what it is, and have your hopes.

Perhaps read Matthew 19:12 and understand that eunuchs in Rome were the closest analogue to trans people that existed in their society, and that many did choose to make themselves eunuchs so as to live as women.

The ironic part is that I think whatever it's worth, many people here are far more Christian than the folks you will find in a church.

The thing is, I've spent my life wanting to be right about something, and knowing that the only way for that to work is if I change what I believe around what IS right, and not for me to pretend that that which is right just happens to be that which I happened to believe.

This is done with challenge, and testing, and doubts: hard things which require much thought and even pain and sacrifice of cherished beliefs. It requires someone to push themselves intentionally into a state of existential crisis.

If you cannot do this, you should not engage in such discussions, not lean heavily on beliefs that could only be challenged thus.

I would argue that this is actually the answer to Pascal's Wager: to be without expectations for what is beyond this world, to be hopeful and whole in your desire to find out what lay there, and curious, willing to forgive whatever you find for not being what you expect so long as they work tirelessly to build heaven for everyone, here, today, wherever here is, But also you must yourself be dedicated to working tirelessly to build heaven here, today, for everyone.

That is the solution. It's actually easier for atheists, honestly. They are generally without expectations (each theist expects their own God); willing to forgive whatever they find, because they find someone with the same problems and concerns they had, most likely; dedicated to building heaven "here" because they already looked away from the promises of heaven from the church.

And the reasons for this are not mysterious, although they did take me a heckin' long time to figure out. To explore those reasons sensibly, however, you have to actually play the game.
 
I just skimmed through DHL’s latest nonsense, too bored to care. Just wondering if ever copped to what his true beliefs are. Guessing not.
 
DLH said:
For me everything would remain the same. I don't celebrate Christmas.
Click to expand...
That's sad for you.

Even after I realized that Santa Claus and Jesus were both imaginary figures. I still enjoyed, even reveled in, the solstice season.

The Spirit of comraderie, generosity, warmth at a cold dark time (here in the northern latitudes). It's totally excellent, regardless of what terms you use to describe it.

Greenery, parties, presents, feasts, holidays, garish decorations,
I think it's great. Sucks to be you.
Tom
 
Go back and read it again without the dumb fake atheist ideological fixation.
Click to expand...
Did that,
There is the fact that for 6,000 years virtually everyone has known it
Click to expand...
STILL BULLSHIT

FACT:
Around 3000 BCE, the religious landscape was dominated by polytheistic beliefs across ancient civilizations like Mesopotamia and Egypt.
The concept of Jehovah as a singular God is primarily associated with the later development of ancient Israelite religion, which began to take shape centuries after this period.
Meanwhile, in Asia, India, South and Central Africa, and the Americas, where the vast preponderance of human populations lived, your Jehovah god thing didn’t even exist.
People under that delusion were a tiny minority, even where that bullshit was pushed. And a vanishingly tiny minority of all people.

You’re full of religious shit. Can’t even come up with novel or relevant insults to cover your abysmal ignorance. And now on my very short “ignore” list as a CWOT.

Buh bye, dolt.
 
Last edited:
Elixir said:
DLH said:
Go back and read it again without the dumb fake atheist ideological fixation.
Click to expand...

Did that, it’s still juvenile bullshit.

Around 3000 BCE, the religious landscape was dominated by polytheistic beliefs across ancient civilizations like Mesopotamia and Egypt.
The concept of Jehovah as a singular God is primarily associated with the later development of ancient Israelite religion, which began to take shape centuries after this period.
Meanwhile, in Asia, India, South and Central Africa, and the Americas, your Jehovah god thing didn’t even exist.
People under that delusion were a tiny minority.
You’re full of religious shit. And on my very short “ignore” list as a CWOT.
Click to expand...

What’s a CWOT? :unsure:
 
TomC said:
pood said:
Elixir said:
Complete Waste Of Time
Click to expand...

You nailed it. And EXTREMELY boring.
Click to expand...
I dunno.
He's yet another religionist explaining why religion is irrational and counterproductive.
We don't get that many of them.
Tom
Click to expand...

Except that makes no sense, and he refuses to cop to his true views. That makes him a CWOT and extremely tedious also — hence, a CWOTETA.
 
TomC said:
pood said:
Elixir said:
Complete Waste Of Time
Click to expand...

You nailed it. And EXTREMELY boring.
Click to expand...
I dunno.
He's yet another religionist explaining why religion is irrational and counterproductive.
We don't get that many of them.
Tom
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t know. For decades I engaged those fools, and it has been decades since they came up with anything better than yet another refried version of the old “goddidit and everybody knows it but won’t admit it” trope.
Extremely boring is an understatement. I’m sure this three letter guy is quite confident that he has, in the way of every self appointed religious “inspired genius”, come up with a new and improved, irrefutable argument that PROVES goddidit.
It’s doubtful to me that anyone here finds it as profound as he does, but perhaps some find it entertaining. Personally I’d rather watch a dog pooping than read any more of that pseudo-irreligious bullshit, though the critiques can be funny.
 
Elixir said:
Personally I’d rather watch a dog pooping than read any more of that pseudo-irreligious bullshit, though the critiques can be funny.
Click to expand...
Then why are you posting long boring responses in this thread?
Tom
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom